Action Comics #2 CGC 9.4

[Sqeggs]

Anyone know what the situation is with movie posters? Does restoration reduce value the way it does with comics?

[hhwolfman]

Yes restoration hurts the value but not frowned on.Just Linen Backing your posters, a lot of times, increases your value.

[Illustrious]

Isn't the whole point of the restored market to give greater access to books that would normally be out of reach for those who do not mind restored?

 

-J.

There is no restored market. There is a comic book market. There are restored comic books books. The point of restoration is to make ugly books more presentable. When disclosed and labeled it really doesn't have anything to do with price. All of the talk about restoration vs. price in this thread seems to be in direct correlation to the views of collectors who tend to poo poo on books with restoration because they don't view those books as worthy of being in their collections. Those same collectors generally also do not collect low grade books, yet they don't come on and rag on those books because of the defects. In this case the book is clearly labeled as to what has been done to it. So why is it even a discussion? The comic market will decide its value, not the restored market...or the conserved market...or any other subset which is looked on as inferior by the high grade collecting purists who love to bash restoration.

 

[Sqeggs]

Yes restoration hurts the value but not frowned on.Just Linen Backing your posters, a lot of times, increases your value.

 

My impression is that with some paper collectibles -- maps, for instance -- cleaning and sealing tears can actually increase value. Is that correct?

[comicdonna]

Cleaning the cover does not actually or necessarily "conserve" anything, but it has indeed "restored" it to a more pristine state. Comic books are not one of a kind paintings on canvas by great masters. They are mass produced, disposable items, regardless of how old they are. They are more like antiques and will always be far more desirable and pricey the closer they are naturally to their original state as possible. This is not a knock against this book, but it has been bidding or remain on the sideline altogether.

 

-J.

(thumbs u

"They are more like antiques and will always be far more desirable and pricey the closer they are naturally to their original state as possible."

restored, and while CGC has clearly tried to do it a favor by dropping it into this holder with this kind of label, it is still a restored book nonetheless, and the price will reflect that, as many potential suitors will choose to temper their

 

Their natural original state did not include soiling on the cover, or staining, or buggers, or any other foreign substance. Seems to me by this logic a well executed wet cleaning which returns the cover to its natural original state should increase value.

 

Nope. The books that survived all these things are worth more. Making books that didn't, look like they did, is restoration. They are worth less.

[MrBedrock]

Cleaning the cover does not actually or necessarily "conserve" anything, but it has indeed "restored" it to a more pristine state. Comic books are not one of a kind paintings on canvas by great masters. They are mass produced, disposable items, regardless of how old they are. They are more like antiques and will always be far more desirable and pricey the closer they are naturally to their original state as possible. This is not a knock against this book, but it has been bidding or remain on the sideline altogether.

 

-J.

(thumbs u

"They are more like antiques and will always be far more desirable and pricey the closer they are naturally to their original state as possible."

restored, and while CGC has clearly tried to do it a favor by dropping it into this holder with this kind of label, it is still a restored book nonetheless, and the price will reflect that, as many potential suitors will choose to temper their

 

Their natural original state did not include soiling on the cover, or staining, or buggers, or any other foreign substance. Seems to me by this logic a well executed wet cleaning which returns the cover to its natural original state should increase value.

 

Nope. The books that survived all these things are worth more. Making books that didn't, look like they did, is restoration. They are worth less.

Why? Which would be more aesthetically pleasing, and thus desirable...a cover with stains, dirt and scribbles...or the same book with the cover cleaned and presentable? Obviously either of those would be worth less than a copy that never had any of those problems. But why is a book that has had those problems cleaned off worth less than a copy that still has them, especially given that having them cleaned off creates a much more presentable copy? That, to me, is one of the great conundrums of the current marketplace, and ultimately one area where I predict there will be drastic changes in perception over the coming years.

[Gotham Kid]

Isn't the whole point of the restored market to give greater access to books that would normally be out of reach for those who do not mind restored?

 

-J.

There is no restored market. There is a comic book market. There are restored comic books books. The point of restoration is to make ugly books more presentable. When disclosed and labeled it really doesn't have anything to do with price. All of the talk about restoration vs. price in this thread seems to be in direct correlation to the views of collectors who tend to poo poo on books with restoration because they don't view those books as worthy of being in their collections. Those same collectors generally also do not collect low grade books, yet they don't come on and rag on those books because of the defects. In this case the book is clearly labeled as to what has been done to it. So why is it even a discussion? The comic market will decide its value, not the restored market...or the conserved market...or any other subset which is looked on as inferior by the high grade collecting purists who love to bash restoration.

 

(thumbs u

[woowoo]

]

Isn't the whole point of the restored market to give greater access to books that would normally be out of reach for those who do not mind restored?

 

-J.

There is no restored market. There is a comic book market. There are restored comic books books. The point of restoration is to make ugly books more presentable. When disclosed and labeled it really doesn't have anything to do with price. All of the talk about restoration vs. price in this thread seems to be in direct correlation to the views of collectors who tend to poo poo on books with restoration because they don't view those books as worthy of being in their collections. Those same collectors generally also do not collect low grade books, yet they don't come on and rag on those books because of the defects. In this case the book is clearly labeled as to what has been done to it. So why is it even a discussion? The comic market will decide its value, not the restored market...or the conserved market...or any other subset which is looked on as inferior by the high grade collecting purists who love to bash restoration.

 

(thumbs u

(thumbs u (thumbs u (thumbs u

[MrBedrock]

I just got in a collection of big logo golden age DC. Most are mid-grade with very nice paper but many have a sticker with the original owners name stuck right in the middle of the cover, right in the middle of the art. Purists would say "leave the sticker there.It has historical significance. It is the way it is and should remain for eternity!" Unfortunately most of those same purists wouldn't want these books because they have a big sticker in the middle of the cover. If the stickers were properly removed the books would be much more presentable and desirable to a vast majority of collectors. Properly removing the stickers would involve using chemicals. They would be restored. In this perverse market they would be considered to have a lower value being restored even though more people would consider buying them without the sticker than with. It just doesn't make much sense.

[woowoo]

I just got in a collection of big logo golden age DC. Most are mid-grade with very nice paper but many have a sticker with the original owners name stuck right in the middle of the cover, right in the middle of the art. Purists would say "leave the sticker there.It has historical significance. It is the way it is and should remain for eternity!" Unfortunately most of those same purists wouldn't want these books because they have a big sticker in the middle of the cover. If the stickers were properly removed the books would be much more presentable and desirable to a vast majority of collectors. Properly removing the stickers would involve using chemicals. They would be restored. In this perverse market they would be considered to have a lower value being restored even though more people would consider buying them without the sticker than with. It just doesn't make much sense.

 

After 70 years and the hands and oils and stains stickers all books have some chemicals on them. Coins are bad to touch with the oils in your hands.

chicken nuggets other things. My 1967 camaro should not get a wash who knows what chemicals the soap has right.

[bluechip]

Cleaning the cover does not actually or necessarily "conserve" anything, but it has indeed "restored" it to a more pristine state. Comic books are not one of a kind paintings on canvas by great masters. They are mass produced, disposable items, regardless of how old they are. They are more like antiques and will always be far more desirable and pricey the closer they are naturally to their original state as possible. This is not a knock against this book, but it has been restored, and while CGC has clearly tried to do it a favor by dropping it into this holder with this kind of label, it is still a restored book nonetheless, and the price will reflect that, as many potential suitors will choose to temper their bidding or remain on the sideline altogether.

 

-J.

(thumbs u

"They are more like antiques and will always be far more desirable and pricey the closer they are naturally to their original state as possible."

 

 

Their natural original state did not include soiling on the cover, or staining, or buggers, or any other foreign substance. Seems to me by this logic a well executed wet cleaning which returns the cover to its natural original state should increase value.

 

 

The comparison began and ended with the fact that restoring antiques kills the market value and greatly reduces the buyer pool, just as it does with comic books. Antique collectors don't want the natural patina smeared off an item anymore so than a high end comic collector wants a book that was disassembled and soaked in acid. People who do decide to purchase such restored items and comic books do so because they can acquire them at a significant discount. And yet then those same purchasers turn around and wonder why their restored items are worth so much less and seemingly attempt to "talk up" the value and desirability of them. I don't get it. Isn't the whole point of the restored market to give greater access to books that would normally be out of reach for those who do not mind restored?

 

-J.

 

To say that is the "point" implies that is the purpose. The market is not supposed to have a purpose to move prices in one direction or another. (and, neither is it supposed to be the purpose, or the "pioint" of a grading company policy

 

Some collectors have opined that lower prices for restored items is the purpose of the purple label. And that I would assume is why some flip out at the suggestion that restored items have been hit too hard, price-wise. If you are looking to acquire them cheap and/or to differentiate what you own as worth much more, you won't like anything that seems like it might change things.

 

But there are two problems with that,. 1 is that it shouldn't be a function of a grading company to define a book as "desecrated" with an express purpose of manipulating prices, and 2 -- even if you believe that's a good idea in theory, in practice it is impossible to satisfy everybody as to what should be considered "desecrated" and it's nearly impossible to keep it consistent and fair. It is quite literally and 100% impossible to maintain an appearance of consistency and fairness. That is why there are endless arguments on this board that a book is in a blue label and "should be a PLOD" and it's why there are books in blue labels and purple labels even though the words on the label say the same things have been done to them.

 

Also, it simply is not accurate to say that wealthy people always prefer antiques unrestored, even if it means leaving dirt in place and not repairing broken pieces. And to the extent that "untouched" items do command a greater price, it is nothing like the wide, wide difference we see between the values of MID TO LOW GRADE comics which are called restored or unrestored not based on how they look or whether they've been improved but based solely on the surmised intent behind the alterations.

 

You simply will not find people telling you that a low-grade condition antique with a bit of carefully applied repair like a spot of varnish is worth far less than a similar piece in worse condition with a massive accidental varnish spill. But that is what you find in comics. I sometimes need to explain this to people in order to educate them what the values are and there has yet to be a time when they didn't initially look at me like that was completely nuts (and made me somewhat embarrassed).

[Gotham Kid]

Speaking of beautiful books

 

http://www.comicconnect.com/bookDetail.php?id=592797

 

 

[rabidwolf]

I see this book going between $350k to $400k

[comicdonna]

Cleaning the cover does not actually or necessarily "conserve" anything, but it has indeed "restored" it to a more pristine state. Comic books are not one of a kind paintings on canvas by great masters. They are mass produced, disposable items, regardless of how old they are. They are more like antiques and will always be far more desirable and pricey the closer they are naturally to their original state as possible. This is not a knock against this book, but it has been bidding or remain on the sideline altogether.

 

-J.

(thumbs u

"They are more like antiques and will always be far more desirable and pricey the closer they are naturally to their original state as possible."

restored, and while CGC has clearly tried to do it a favor by dropping it into this holder with this kind of label, it is still a restored book nonetheless, and the price will reflect that, as many potential suitors will choose to temper their

 

Their natural original state did not include soiling on the cover, or staining, or buggers, or any other foreign substance. Seems to me by this logic a well executed wet cleaning which returns the cover to its natural original state should increase value.

 

Nope. The books that survived all these things are worth more. Making books that didn't, look like they did, is restoration. They are worth less.

Why? Which would be more aesthetically pleasing, and thus desirable...a cover with stains, dirt and scribbles...or the same book with the cover cleaned and presentable? Obviously either of those would be worth less than a copy that never had any of those problems. But why is a book that has had those problems cleaned off worth less than a copy that still has them, especially given that having them cleaned off creates a much more presentable copy? That, to me, is one of the great conundrums of the current marketplace, and ultimately one area where I predict there will be drastic changes in perception over the coming years.

The biggest reason why I like to collect GA is to own something that is old and rare. Something that has survived time. If a book was soiled at some point, chances are, that copy isn't the right book for my collection. If it was the only copy that existed, I would want to buy it soiled, not cleaned. I'm not the only person who feels this way. That's why this book won't sell for full 9.4 value.

[bluechip]

Cleaning the cover does not actually or necessarily "conserve" anything, but it has indeed "restored" it to a more pristine state. Comic books are not one of a kind paintings on canvas by great masters. They are mass produced, disposable items, regardless of how old they are. They are more like antiques and will always be far more desirable and pricey the closer they are naturally to their original state as possible. This is not a knock against this book, but it has been bidding or remain on the sideline altogether.

 

-J.

(thumbs u

"They are more like antiques and will always be far more desirable and pricey the closer they are naturally to their original state as possible."

restored, and while CGC has clearly tried to do it a favor by dropping it into this holder with this kind of label, it is still a restored book nonetheless, and the price will reflect that, as many potential suitors will choose to temper their

 

Their natural original state did not include soiling on the cover, or staining, or buggers, or any other foreign substance. Seems to me by this logic a well executed wet cleaning which returns the cover to its natural original state should increase value.

 

Nope. The books that survived all these things are worth more. Making books that didn't, look like they did, is restoration. They are worth less.

Why? Which would be more aesthetically pleasing, and thus desirable...a cover with stains, dirt and scribbles...or the same book with the cover cleaned and presentable? Obviously either of those would be worth less than a copy that never had any of those problems. But why is a book that has had those problems cleaned off worth less than a copy that still has them, especially given that having them cleaned off creates a much more presentable copy? That, to me, is one of the great conundrums of the current marketplace, and ultimately one area where I predict there will be drastic changes in perception over the coming years.

The biggest reason why I like to collect GA is to own something that is old and rare. Something that has survived time. If a book was soiled at some point, chances are, that copy isn't the right book for my collection. If it was the only copy that existed, I would want to buy it soiled, not cleaned. I'm not the only person who feels this way.

 

 

I think the point being made is not that there aren't people who feel that way or even a lot of people who feel that way. The point being made is that the purple label is one of the things that has caused their influence to be out of proportion with their numbers.

[MrBedrock]

The biggest reason why I like to collect GA is to own something that is old and rare. Something that has survived time. If a book was soiled at some point, chances are, that copy isn't the right book for my collection. If it was the only copy that existed, I would want to buy it soiled, not cleaned. I'm not the only person who feels this way. That's why this book won't sell for full 9.4 value.

You know I also collect high grade books and therefore prefer books that have never had any damage. The reason I collect high grade is for the look. I want something that looks as close to newsstand fresh as possible. Mile Highs, Allentowns, Spokanes, those books have been handled very little and have colors that pop. I love them for the way they look. It isn't primarily about value for me, other than the inherent value I derive from looking at a beautiful book.

 

Since the eye appeal of the book is so important to me I would much prefer a book that had a clean cover than a book that was all stained and dirty if I had to make that choice.

[Jaydogrules]

Isn't the whole point of the restored market to give greater access to books that would normally be out of reach for those who do not mind restored?

 

-J.

There is no restored market. There is a comic book market. There are restored comic books books. The point of restoration is to make ugly books more presentable. When disclosed and labeled it really doesn't have anything to do with price. All of the talk about restoration vs. price in this thread seems to be in direct correlation to the views of collectors who tend to poo poo on books with restoration because they don't view those books as worthy of being in their collections. Those same collectors generally also do not collect low grade books, yet they don't come on and rag on those books because of the defects. In this case the book is clearly labeled as to what has been done to it. So why is it even a discussion? The comic market will decide its value, not the restored market...or the conserved market...or any other subset which is looked on as inferior by the high grade collecting purists who love to bash restoration.

 

Your post presumes quite a lot. The main problem is that you do not recognize that there can exist more than one sub-set of "markets" within a hobby. There are some collectors who only collect restored comics because they are less expensive. There are some people who collect low grade comics because they don't like restored, but also because they are less expensive. There are some people who collect signature series books because they are into that. And of course there are those who have the deepest pockets to demand the highest graded copy possible, regardless of the book.

 

Do you really think that the majority of the people that are "restoration bashing" are a part of the latter group ? And what exactly is "restoration bashing" about someone lamenting that a book has been manipulated and wondering what might have been had the book simply been left alone ? Because I think that's really what we are talking about here- leaving the book alone. Regardless of what time has done prior to coming into our hands, we are only temporary custodians of these artifacts. So leave the book alone. Okay so little Johnny wrote his name on the cover 60 years ago, that wasn't originally part of the book. But it is how it was when you got it. So leave it alone. Now we're talking about a book that got a chemical bath at some point in its existence, and that's how it will be when the new owner takes possession. That's not his fault, he didn't do it to the book. So he'll get a big discount off the book than he otherwise would have and he will have a really nice looking restored comic book. But why then hate the larger market for not co-signing the work that was done to this book to "make it look better" and get angry and defensive that your book isn't "worth as much" as an "ugly" book that is perhaps lower grade but never treated with chemicals to make it "look pretty" ? You got the book you wanted at a great price, shouldn't that be enough?

 

People are free to buy whatever they want, and you're right, people will decide with their wallets. There will just be much less wallets doing the decision making, because the restored market is small compared to the "un restored" market. My 2 cents.

 

-J.

 

[comicdonna]

The biggest reason why I like to collect GA is to own something that is old and rare. Something that has survived time. If a book was soiled at some point, chances are, that copy isn't the right book for my collection. If it was the only copy that existed, I would want to buy it soiled, not cleaned. I'm not the only person who feels this way. That's why this book won't sell for full 9.4 value.

You know I also collect high grade books and therefore prefer books that have never had any damage. The reason I collect high grade is for the look. I want something that looks as close to newsstand fresh as possible. Mile Highs, Allentowns, Spokanes, those books have been handled very little and have colors that pop. I love them for the way they look. It isn't primarily about value for me, other than the inherent value I derive from looking at a beautiful book.

 

Since the eye appeal of the book is so important to me I would much prefer a book that had a clean cover than a book that was all stained and dirty if I had to make that choice.

I would take your under copies any day.

 

As far as the Action #2, I would rather have an 8.0 blue over a 9.4 cleaned. There's no changing my mind or yours. Also, neither will be right or wrong.

[nearmint]

Cleaning the cover does not actually or necessarily "conserve" anything, but it has indeed "restored" it to a more pristine state. Comic books are not one of a kind paintings on canvas by great masters. They are mass produced, disposable items, regardless of how old they are. They are more like antiques and will always be far more desirable and pricey the closer they are naturally to their original state as possible. This is not a knock against this book, but it has been bidding or remain on the sideline altogether.

 

-J.

(thumbs u

"They are more like antiques and will always be far more desirable and pricey the closer they are naturally to their original state as possible."

restored, and while CGC has clearly tried to do it a favor by dropping it into this holder with this kind of label, it is still a restored book nonetheless, and the price will reflect that, as many potential suitors will choose to temper their

 

Their natural original state did not include soiling on the cover, or staining, or buggers, or any other foreign substance. Seems to me by this logic a well executed wet cleaning which returns the cover to its natural original state should increase value.

 

Nope. The books that survived all these things are worth more. Making books that didn't, look like they did, is restoration. They are worth less.

Why? Which would be more aesthetically pleasing, and thus desirable...a cover with stains, dirt and scribbles...or the same book with the cover cleaned and presentable? Obviously either of those would be worth less than a copy that never had any of those problems. But why is a book that has had those problems cleaned off worth less than a copy that still has them, especially given that having them cleaned off creates a much more presentable copy? That, to me, is one of the great conundrums of the current marketplace, and ultimately one area where I predict there will be drastic changes in perception over the coming years.

The biggest reason why I like to collect GA is to own something that is old and rare. Something that has survived time. If a book was soiled at some point, chances are, that copy isn't the right book for my collection. If it was the only copy that existed, I would want to buy it soiled, not cleaned. I'm not the only person who feels this way. That's why this book won't sell for full 9.4 value.

 

What's interesting about this book is that no one knows what "full 9.4 value" is. The highest graded blue label copy is a 7.5. I suspect that the conserved 9.4 will do very well.

[MrBedrock]

Isn't the whole point of the restored market to give greater access to books that would normally be out of reach for those who do not mind restored?

 

-J.

There is no restored market. There is a comic book market. There are restored comic books books. The point of restoration is to make ugly books more presentable. When disclosed and labeled it really doesn't have anything to do with price. All of the talk about restoration vs. price in this thread seems to be in direct correlation to the views of collectors who tend to poo poo on books with restoration because they don't view those books as worthy of being in their collections. Those same collectors generally also do not collect low grade books, yet they don't come on and rag on those books because of the defects. In this case the book is clearly labeled as to what has been done to it. So why is it even a discussion? The comic market will decide its value, not the restored market...or the conserved market...or any other subset which is looked on as inferior by the high grade collecting purists who love to bash restoration.

 

Your post presumes quite a lot. The main problem is that you do not recognize that there can exist more than one sub-set of "markets" within a hobby. There are some collectors who only collect restored comics because they are less expensive. There are some people who collect low grade comics because they don't like restored, but also because they are less expensive. There are some people who collect signature series books because they are into that. And of course there are those who have the deepest pockets to demand the highest graded copy possible, regardless of the book.

 

Do you really think that the majority of the people that are "restoration bashing" are a part of the latter group ? And what exactly is "restoration bashing" about someone lamenting that a book has been manipulated and wondering what might have been had the book simply been left alone ? Because I think that's really what we are talking about here- leaving the book alone. Regardless of what time has done prior to coming into our hands, we are only temporary custodians of these artifacts. So leave the book alone. Okay so little Johnny wrote his name on the cover 60 years ago, that wasn't originally part of the book. But it is how it was when you got it. So leave it alone. Now we're talking about a book that got a chemical bath at some point in its existence, and that's how it will be when the new owner takes possession. That's not his fault, he didn't do it to the book. So he'll get a big discount off the book than he otherwise would have and he will have a really nice looking restored comic book. But why then hate the larger market for not co-signing the work that was done to this book to "make it look better" and get angry and defensive that your book isn't "worth as much" as an "ugly" book that is perhaps lower grade but never treated with chemicals to make it "look pretty" ? You got the book you wanted at a great price, shouldn't that be enough?

 

People are free to buy whatever you want, and you're right, people will decide with their wallets. There will just be much less wallets doing the decision making, because the restored market is small compared to the "un restored" market. My 2 cents.

 

-J.

You presume that I haven't been selling comics as my profession for more than thirty years.

I have never met anyone who only collects restored comics. I have never met anyone who only collects low grade. But everyone I have met in this hobby is subject to some kind of budget restraint and collects within the parameters of what they can afford. Therefore some or most of their purchases may be restored or low grade. But all of that is beside the point.

 

What we are talking about is given the choice what would you prefer...a completely untouched ugly, stained, and/or damaged book or a book that has been cleaned or repaired? You are from the camp that says never under any circumstances mess with the paper. I respect that. I also disagree with it. There are many instances where I would prefer that the paper was messed with.

 

It has nothing to do with value to me, other than the aesthetic value of the look of the book.